When I design a design system, I treat it as the single authoritative source for components, patterns, accessibility rules, and behavioral decisions.
This approach reduces ambiguity, subjective interpretation, and divergence between design and development.
In practice, I have consistently observed that when multiple "sources of truth" coexist—design files, local implementations, undocumented patterns—teams start to:
- duplicate solutions,
- rebuild components locally,
- and make visual or technical decisions outside the system.
For this reason, anything that is not expressed within the design system should not be considered official. Every extension or change must pass through the system itself, in an explicit, documented, and versioned way.
The goal is not control, but clarity: enabling teams to trust the system and focus on product work rather than interpretation and reconciliation.
Tools like Storybook as a primary reference
In a production design system I worked on, Storybook was intentionally positioned as the operational source of truth, not as a secondary showcase.
Interactive documentation
Components designed as public APIs
Components were defined as stable contracts rather than flexible local implementations.
Interactive documentation
CI/CD pipelines as alignment mechanisms
The build and deployment pipeline was used not only for distribution, but as a mechanism for enforcing coherence between design and development.
CI/CD pipeline stages
Explicit processes for system changes
Design system evolution was handled through clearly defined and traceable processes.
Change proposal workflow
Accessibility embedded in the source of truth
Accessibility requirements were integrated directly into the design system rather than treated as external guidelines.
Accessibility integrated in components
A single source of truth is not about enforcing rigidity.
It is about:
- reducing decision noise,
- increasing confidence in the system,
- preventing the silent fragmentation that turns design systems into optional libraries.
Without this principle, a design system inevitably becomes:
- a theoretical reference,
- a partially adopted toolkit,
- or a document that teams gradually ignore.